Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Christopher Rusyniak
Professor Brown
Perspectives
One of the reasons why Socrates teachings are still read, studied, and revered today is
their timeless nature. His definitions of various pure forms of government such as timocracy,
oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny are still applicable today. We could still agree that pure
I will have to make this vague relative to Aristotle’s description of good in Nicomachean
Ethics. Generally a good society is one which allows for a wholesome lifestyle as well as
provides for the “necessary appetites” of a being, such as food, shelter, and protection of life and
property. It must also have a dynamic system in place for creating and updating laws to defend
citizens from infringements on the former rights and others as they see fit.
In order to defame ‘democracy’ we must first specify exactly what democracy is.
Democracy is a society where the constituents rule themselves. Everyone has an equal voice in
every bit of legislative action and judgment. The people also have limitless freedom to govern
themselves as they see fit. A less extreme example would be a government where everyone had
an equal say in the actions of government, legislative, judicial, and executive. An example of a
pure democracy would be anarchy, as in an anarchy everyone is free to do anything they wish.
I defined democracy as “having limitless freedom to govern yourselves as you see fit.”
This is also a paradox as having limitless freedom means not being bound by government;
Rusyniak 2
therefore you would not be able to govern yourself with limitless freedom. And so, you may
One of the first issues that comes to mind when you think of this society is that a perfect
democracy or anarchy simply cannot exist. Plato, in The Republic, insinuates this as he says
“isn’t that a heavenly and pleasant way to pass the time, while it lasts. It probably is, while it
lasts.” (558a2)
Plato also throws at us a dilemma of the democratic society when he says, “There is no
compulsion to rule this city…or to be ruled…” (557e2) The truth is that one can set up as much
infrastructure as one wants but if no one is required to obey, the population will simply ponder
the easier way to appease their appetites, usually stealing, killing, etc. This is a reference to
Instantaneously after anarchy’s creation the citizens of this society will create alliances
with other citizens and they would begin to make various contracts with each other for
protection, food, shelter, etc. If they did not they would be enslaved to their own full spectrum
of freedoms. A freedom to kill, steal, or rape would submit the population into a constant fear
and force citizens to form these alliances or be killed. A reoccurring paradox is formed; freedom
And just like that anarchy, democracy is gone, and it becomes tyranny, people no longer
have the full spectrum of freedoms. This of course is the most extreme case.
Let us set up another hypothetical democracy in which everyone votes on laws, their
execution and judicial decisions. There are a number of faults in this system, some more obvious
than others. The first one that comes to mind is the slowness and potential for error in such a
system. If everyone was required to vote, the entirety of society would have to stop dead after
Rusyniak 3
every issue, large or minuscule, that surfaces and be summoned to a vote. The government
would be impossibly slow at legislating, and the efficiency of all the other portions of the society
Also when describing a democratic being Plato mentions that the Democrat lives life
“day to day, gratifying the appetite of the moment.” (561c6) He doesn’t ponder the future, but
rather pleasures himself to the best of his ability at a particular instant. How can the legislative
body take action that will positively benefit the society if each member of the body only cares
about pleasuring himself for that instant? It would be nearly impossible to assemble any sort of
majority and if they did this majority would care nothing about the future effects of their rash
decisions. In the future large groups of people rallying for a single cause based on it immediate
need would be termed factions. Creators of our government, such as James Madison, were very
afraid of factions and sought to throw as much oligarchic power into the constitution as possible
(Senate, Judiciary, etc.) This was to defend the society from whim. Plato illustrates this as well,
“he takes part in politics, leaping to his feet and saying and doing whatever happens to come to
mind.” (561d2)
Plato argues that instead of the appetites controlling spiritedness and wisdom, wisdom
should control spiritedness and appetites. Democrats, he argues use their wisdom, not to live
Clearly democracy is the one of the most inferior forms of government. It does not
promote order, it does not allow for any laws, and it makes for the creation of drones, people
who are only interested in satisfying their current appetites and believe this to be happiness. An
irony exists, happiness just as the appetite is instantaneous, and the citizens of this society will be
Rusyniak 4
in a perpetual search for different and more extreme ways satisfy their unnecessary appetites as
Pure Democracy is not only inferior, but also impossible. As I stated earlier, the only real
democracy, oligarchy, and timocracy. Even so, not one country in the world has achieved a
government that is completely perfect. Now, a couple millennia after Socrates’ death we still
have been unable to perfect the system and have revolutions, disenfranchised people, and
Just as Plato claims, “It looks, then, as though it is the most beautiful of all
constitutions…And presumably many people would behave like women and children…and
actually judge it to be most beautiful.” (557c4) At first glance boundless freedom seems to be
the ideal virtue. That is until one becomes a slave to that freedom. Socrates’ argument still has